Oswestry21

The following post has arrived from Cambrian Railway Trust, indicating their considerable concerns about lack of any sensitivity to Oswestrys history, listed buildings, current projects that will forge landmark features and visitor attractions, and a general lack of interest and regard for the context in which the Burbidge/Vernon/Tesco scheme is proposed to be sited. A long post, but worth reading in full.  

The Cambrian Railways Trust is an objector to the applications for a supermarket and cinema on the Richard Burbidge site, and the trustees are disappointed that the developer does not seem to have taken their views into account. The Trust now leases the railway through Oswestry, and has firm plans to reopen it – not only for steam trains, but for a community rail service between Oswestry and Gobowen, and perhaps stone trains from a reopened Blodwel quarry. Two main points directly affect the Trust’s charitable objectives concerning railway heritage (regardless of the principle of where if anywhere a new supermarket should be, which of course is outside the Trust scope to comment on).

Firstly, the scheme shows “New pedestrian/Cycle routes delivered as part of the development” on the line of the existing disused railway track. A larger scale plan has been produced since, which still ignores the fact that the railway will have trains running on it! Between Gobowen and Llynclys generally, there will be little difficulty in providing adequate safety clearances from the railway and fitting in a cycleway, and the Trust is happy to work with anybody who is designing such a scheme – but is concerned when drawings are produced which deny the existence of the railway. Alongside the Burbidge site, there seems to be plenty for space for a cycleway on former railway land, and a good opportunity to construct it at the developers expense, but there would have to be steps down to Whittington Road to continue northwards alongside the railway, a second bridge deck would need to be put beside the single-track railway bridge. To the south, however, it will probably be necessary for the cycleway to pass over what it now McLarens car park and then across the village green – it certainly cannot pass between the two platforms of Oswestry station, because that space will be full of railway tracks.

A footpath/cycle route is also shown across the railway at the south end of the Burbidge site. This is an existing crossing with restricted rights, and not a public route, and for safety reasons the Railway Inspectorate will not allow it to remain open for traffic so close to the new level crossing serving the medical centre. It is possible that permission would be given for pedestrians and bikes, and the developer has accepted responsibility for any costs involved in this – but there is no guarantee it would be permitted at all.

These cycleways are outside the boundary of the application site, but appear to be an integral part of the justification for the scheme. So it would seem that a lot more detail would need to be agreed before the scheme could be granted planning permission.

Secondly, the Trust’s other main concern is the future  of the grade II listed railway workshops which once constructed and repaired steam locos, carriages, wagons, and many other items. Independent studies state that Oswestry’s “station buildings and the works are the best surviving examples of their type in the UK…”, categorising them as “Nationally Significant Features …. The main buildings (including the station, goods shed, signalbox and works…), the platforms, trackbed, footbridge and associated features … all survive in a unique group. The buildings are handsome and generally in good condition, contributing a major townscape feature…. Although in disparate ownership the potential of the Oswestry site to illustrate the scale and complexity of a regional railway headquarters remains.”

However the developer’s “Heritage Statement” utterly fails to recognize or address the importance of the works, and uses a convoluted and misleading argument to categorise the proposed demolition of large parts of the listed buildings as “alterations” instead of demolition. It describes the 1904-built bays 1 and 2 as “modern” and proposes, without explaining why, to completely replace them with new buildings of a similar size and shape but incongruent appearance.

The Heritage Statement is also very dismissive of the detached Sheet Room and Gasworks buildings at the rear of the main works, and gives misleading descriptions of them. The sheet room in particular is a substantial and interesting building which could be converted to various other uses (not dissimilar to the Ironworks off Church Street) – but instead it is proposed to demolish it to “improve access”, with the plans actually showing the site used for car parking.

A short distance away from the works is the former loco running shed. Not many people realize it still exists, because it has modern roof cladding and recent sheds added each side, but the steeper roof pitch gives it away. In fact it is a large and interesting structure (approx 20 x 61m) built about 1860 of decorative brickwork with rows of round-topped windows. It is within the curtiledge of the main works, and is therefore protected by the same grade II listed status. But instead of making use of the potential of this important and historic building, the developer proposes to demolish it and use the space, again, for car parking.

It is hard to see how Listed Building Consent could be granted without a lot of changes to the developers proposals!

There was an Oswestry Chamber of Trade meeting at the Wynnstay on Wednesday to attend yet more presentations by two of the supermarket developers. J Ross for the Central Car Park and Vernons/King Sturge for Burbidges. A small number of traders, some of them from the same businesses, so not entirely a representative body of Oswestry independent trading community, but well done to those who turned out.

There wasn’t really anything that anyone who had attended previous presentations hadn’t heard already. Vernons have scrapped the DIY and other comparison goods outlets aspects of their presentation. Felix Gummer of Tesco authoritatively informed us that the Tesco building on offer was high enough to accommodate a mezzanine floor - but that there wouldn’t be one as it would involve a further future planning application. Quite why this was implied to be beyond the scope of Tesco in the case of Oswestry was left unexplained. He also stated that there would be no pharmacy in the Burbidge Tesco as it was too small. Again, in the event of a successful application, time will doubtless tell. Maggie Godfrey of King Sturge reiterated once more that a Tesco store in Oswestry would have no effect on independent traders, while giving the impression of staying aloft while flying in the face of all evidence to the contrary elsewhere. There was some flak and antagonism, not to mention disbelief, regarding much of the presentation.

J Ross were keen to big up the PPS6, town-centre-first aspects of the Central Car Park scheme, and also endeavoured to allay fears about disruption and parking issues. However well and how often these are explained, these factors will continue to be the cause of fears for all town centre traders. There were also concerns about scale, as indeed there were about Burbidges, particularly set against the latest NLP figures for current retail need which are around 20,000 sq. ft. gross, as opposed to the just under 60,000 sq. ft. of Burbidges and the over 60,000 sq. ft. footprint of the Central Car Park. NLP analysis of the current schemes MAY have an effect upon these figures. The argument for larger scale of supermarket is that it will “future proof” the town against further supermarket development……..

The presentations were followed by a discussion among the few who were present, during which many of the issues that readers of this site would be very familiar with were raised. And a vote was taken. There were no votes for the Burbidge scheme, 9 votes for no supermarket development at all, and 9 votes for a Central Car Park development. Which seemed a fair result. But a further vote was taken on which scheme would be preferred if no supermarket at all was not an option, and there was a majority vote in favour of the Central Car Park.

So not a resounding fanfare of support, but a qualified result for what seems to be perceived as a least worst option. And perhaps fairer to have sat through presentations by all four schemes, or none at all and had a discussion based on the considerable information available on all four.

Is this minute number of members of the trading community actually representative of the business community at large? Why so few? Is it apathy? Is it the structure of the Chamber of Trade? Either way it’s a fairer manifestation of democracy than a similar number of elected representatives cooking up the Smithfield scheme behind closed doors and presenting it as a “fait accomplis”.

I suppose it was an example of the low flickering flame of local democracy in action, and as such deserves a smattering of applause. Good for everyone who made the effort, traders and developers alike. How we make democracy more of a practice, rather than a  vague, woolly and somehow comforting concept that we safely feel we can afford to take no part in is a different matter.

Burbidges secures undisclosed site for relocation.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/2009/08/17/burbidge-secures-site-for-business/ 

C’mon, it’s a small town. Answers on a postcard please.

Well, presentations of the three current applications have been put before the Special Development Control Committee. All were characterised by laughable overuse of the word “sustainable”, all got the violins out for the future of OCA, JT Hughes/Guttercrest and Burbidges respectively (notably no violins for the town centre), and Liberty Mercian and Vernons seemed sufficiently rattled by a potential Central Car Park proposal to forget about kicking each other and to jointly give the Central Car Park site a kicking instead.

The Smithfield doesn’t appear to have an operator on board, (though rumours persist of Tesco backing all horses - God knows they’ve been seen to be desperate enough for the Oswestry £ in the past, so why so coy now?), nor did the spokesman have answers as to who might occupy the other retail units, but made much of having a DIY operator interested, as if we can’t trip over DIY outlets already. The free bus service will operate for 5 years, with unspecified funding after that period. Mention of bus stops made considerable mention of on site bus stops at the Smithfield, but town bus stops were left off the Liberty Mercian drawings as they would have made the drawing “far too detailed”. Well…… indeed. A slick presentation that glossed over the “no operator” issue, and the implication that potential occupiers would seem to share the opinion that this ridiculous and out-dated out-of-town development is a dead duck.

The local team, J T Hughes/Guttercrest, made much of “architectural opportunity”, “unique site”, “sustainable development(!)”, “gateway design statement” etc etc. And to be fair, it seems apparent that considerable thought has gone into these issues, and also tha- a successful traffic solution to this awkward junction has been seen as being essential to the proposal. Despite all reassurances, it would take a real life scenario to demonstrate whether a roundabout at the junction of two of the main roads into town, with truck deliveries, branches off to a supermarket,  to the cemetery, close to the garage, and adjacent to the blind bend on the railway bridge would actually work as described. James Evans of Samuel Wood Commercial rightly spoke of the devastation to Wrexham town centre since the coming of Eagles Meadow, but made the curious claim that the J T Hughes/Guttercrest supermarket would have a role in “control and protection of the town and town centre” without substantiating quite how an “out of centre” (Nathaniel Lichfield Retail Survey) would succeed in doing this. Considerable woolliness about re-location of existing businesses and the time scale of this and thus of delivery.

The Vernons/Burbidge/King Sturge presentation reflected the confidence of the only developer with a named operator on board. Much made of public consultation, permeability and linkage with the town centre and “improved” traffic flow, despite the odd situation on Whittington Road described in a post below. Described emphatically as “edge-of-town” despite the Nathaniel Lichfield tablet of stone that all three developers cling to so enthusiastically describing all three sites as “out of centre”. No mention of future mezzanine with the 20,000-25,000 sq. ft. added retail space that that would provide. King Sturge’s spokeswoman claims that “Tesco is unlikely to draw trade from traditional and independent shops in the town centre”, which flies in the face of all evidence to the contrary over the UK over the last 20+ years, so how Oswestry town centre independents, of all in the country, are going to flourish in the shadow of a potential “category killer” store was left unclear. Perhaps the Special Development Control Committee would like to ask. The Tesco’s as applied for at this date will be 60% food and 30% comparison goods, 23% larger than Sainsbury’s, and the car park will be “basically free” - err…….. how basically? Free or not free? Big claims for environmental issues and the building having the potential to be Tesco’s 2nd environmentally friendly store. This does not ring many bells with those who feel that the “green industry” is just a means of enabling us all to live in the manner to which we have become accustomed, and not actually encouraging us to face up to the reality of living with less, consuming less, eating less, wasting less etc. etc. in a world of finite and declining resources.

Questions that should be asked by the Special Dev. Control Committee should include those concerning plans for future mezzanines with the potential for expanding retail space in any of these stores by up to 30%, how any of these “out-of-centre” (Nathaniel Lichfield) schemes guarantee to regenerate a town centre already described as “dead” by some councillors. Councillors should also ask whether town centre vitality is important enough for developers to bias their linkages and transport systems with the town in order to favour inward bound trips rather than outward bound supermarket trips. There are any number of extremely pertinent questions that require clear answers, and perhaps readers would like to assist councillors by suggesting some below.

The Central Car Park came in for a kicking by both Vernons and Liberty Mercian, who, despite their seeming disparagement of the site’s potential, took some time to cover the ground regarding it’s unavailability. They both appear rattled enough about a PPS6 compliant site to have written on this website in the case of Liberty Mercian, and to the Advertizer in the case of King Sturge.  Three key words come up in relation to the Central Car Park - suitability, viability and availability. The Nathaniel Lichfield Retail Survey described the Central Car Parks suitability as “good”, as opposed to “reasonable” or “poor”. The viability of the site is up to a developer to resolve, it’s what they do, just as the other developers have endeavoured to do with their own respective sites and schemes. The availability of the site - it is only unavailable due to the Town Council’s own pecuniary interest in the Smithfield site. The case rests, M’lud.

It came to our notice back in last summer that there were rumours of a spoiler on the Vernon/Burbidge scheme. Interested parties had, allegedly, negotiated an option to buy a strip of land consisting of a small yard and a row of sheds on the B4580 Whittington Road, adjoining the Burbidge site, on the right hand side of the road as you pass under the railway bridge heading out towards the by pass and Whittington. If so, this has effectively prevented full land assembly by Burbidge developers Vernons and affects their original desired resolution of traffic issues at the entrance to the proposed supermarket on the Burbidge site.

It seems that attempts are now being made to arrange for a strip of land to be assembled on the opposite side of the road, consisting of part of the gardens of the terrace of houses (Bridge Terrace) on the left hand side of Whittington Road opposite the Burbidge site. From the relevant drawing from the Vernons planning application this would appear to affect a dozen houses and their owners and/or inhabitants. This land would seem to be required to resolve the traffic issues in the manner described in the application and is outside the outlined development area of the scheme.

This would appear to be an Achilles heel in the Vernon/Burbidge scheme. Any relevant information related to this issue would be gratefully and confidentially received at os21group@yahoo.com . We shall be observing this with interest and report on it as information filters to the massed ranks of computers and highly trained staff on the 18th floor of the OS21 offices.

Out of the stalls and away round the first bend, and it’s neck and neck. And how’s the field looking?

Well, there’s the lardy looking Liberty Mercian/Smithfield, carrying far too much weight, and despite the hype won’t like the heavy going, and then Vernons/Burbidges, looking flashy and in blinkers, another heavy horse and rider - keenly competitive, but over confidence could be it’s undoing, and then the outsider, riding in local colours, J T Hughes/Guttercrest, carrying less weight and may find current conditions more to it’s liking. And what’s this? Oh dear! Poor old Town Centre seems to be stuck in the stalls and it’s jockey, the veteran Town Council, appears to be doubling up on Liberty Mercian/Smithfield!! A very poor start indeed there for Town Centre……….what hope for a recovery?

Of course, there could well be a nasty pile up and a lengthy steward’s enquiry, and it’s a long race with a couple of months to run, so plenty of time to get those binocs out, enjoy a glass or two and watch them head out down the next straight and into the notoriously tricky Planning Application Corner.

So, who’s got a bet on? 

In answer to a request on this site for an image of the Burbidge/Vernons proposal, here is one viewed from Gobowen road, looking towards town and Shelf Bank. Seemingly no on line plans as yet. The Advertizer have a small gallery of images of this development on their home page. Click on the link.